Skip to main content

Learn It

Identifying Reliable Sources

Let’s look at an historical document that is totally wrong. Mr. Lexington calls it the Great Moon Hoax of 1835. He’ll tell you about it.


Speaker plays audio

   Is This Source Reliable?

We often think of newspapers as reliable historical sources, but I’m going to show you something that might change your mind.

'

Look at this illustration from the New York Sun newspaper in 1835. The newspaper published it with a series of articles about different animals that people had seen on the surface of the moon.

You’ll see human-bat creatures, unicorns, and other imaginary beings. Knowing what we know about the moon, it’s clear that this is fake.

So, Mr. Lexington, are you saying that we can’t trust newspapers as historical sources?

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. What I’m saying is that you have to look carefully at all of your sources – even newspapers -- before you decide what you can trust.


Mr. Lexington says one way to decide whether a source is reliable is to ask a few key questions:

  1. Who made this source?
  2. What is the evidence?
  3. What do other sources say?


Observe, Reflect, Question

Did you notice that each question fits into the process for evaluating sources? Primary source analysis helps us know if a source is reliable. Remember, Mr. Lexington says that analyzing sources is all about thinking deeply and asking questions. Here’s a reminder of how primary source analysis works.



the word 'bias' written on a white boardWay to go, Brian! You observed the illustration, reflected on it, and questioned it, so you know that this source cannot be trusted. In fact, the New York Sun published this as a hoax – maybe to get more people to read the paper. It is easy for us to tell that this source can’t be trusted, but people in 1835 believed it. This is the same trouble we have figuring out what to believe on the internet today. Just keep using primary source analysis for historical and modern sources.